ROW Question

[foillion]

Fencer A attacks and is parried. Fencer A makes an immediate remise and hits on target. Fencer B makes riposte which Fencer A after hitting the remise takes the blade in parry and makes counter-riposte. Fencer B continues with his riposte, now a remise, and hits on target. Both lights are on. Who gets the touch?

I see two sides to this argument.

A: Fencer A hit with remise and therefor his attempt at counterparry-riposte is null and void and Fencer B's riposte is valid. Touch for B.

B: Fencer A successfully counterparried and riposted and therefor should get the touch.

I lean towards A for this reason....the referee cannot overturn the lights on the machine...(please don't bring up the whole "pinning the hand to the lame" thing)...Fencer A hit with remise and that is what turned the light on so therefor that is what his action was. His attempt at counterparry-riposte is now only an attempt to closeout the riposte, which fails. Touch for B.

I'm curious to see where people weigh in on this.

-P

[eac]

It's for A, and it's not debatable. Attack from A is parried, riposte from B is no, remise from A is good, touch A.

The fact that A happened to poke B again after poking him the first time is totally irrelevant.

[Allen Evans]

The way I have read your post, Fencer A scored with a remise and prevented the initial riposte from B arriving (I assume it was the remise that scored for B). Touch for A.

Is this made up? I would be surprised if the current timings allow this action to set off both lights.

[IanSerotkin]

A: Fencer A hit with remise and therefor his attempt at counterparry-riposte is null and void and Fencer B's riposte is valid. Touch for B.

This can't be right, because Fencer B's riposte did not land. It was parried.

B: Fencer A successfully counterparried and riposted and therefor should get the touch.

It's certainly Fencer A's touch, but that's not the way I'd call it. Since A has already hit, you pretty much throw away everything he did afterwards--we only count people's first touch, after all. So, think about what you'd call if Fencer A did not do the counter-riposte, but instead just blocked out B's riposte after A's remise landed (which is exactly what happened):

Attack from A is PARRIED. Riposte from B is NO. Remise from A arrives. Touch for A.

[foillion]

It's for A, and it's not debatable.

Are you new?



-P

so instead of A attempting to counterparry riposte after the remise he simply attempts to close out and fails, but makes blade contact and then hits B again. Same answer? Different answer?

To Allen: no this didn't happen but it was a hypothetical that I had bouncing around in my head for a while. I suppose the riposte for B being initially no does make the most sense. But the idea of someone attempting to closeout and failing and then making it look like they had attempted to counter-riposte instead of a failed closeout bugged me. Intent vs. the actual action...meh just bouncing stuff around in the empty cavern that is my head.

[KD5MDK]

I'm very confused by why this seems hard. You just go through the events in order:
A's Attack (parried)
B's Riposte (did not arrive)
A's Remise (arrived)
B's Remise (arrived)

Who's action arrived first in this order? A's.

[keith]

What you need is a time machine.

That way you can go back and record the bout with a high speed camera linked to the recording apparatus and get it right.

How depressing is it that this might actually be viewed as a good use of a time machine.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Are you new?



-P

No, really, this is entirely cut and dry. You look at each individual action.

So, first attack is from fencer A. This attack fails (it is parried).
Fencer B now has priority.
Fencer A remises and hits. This attack obviously does not fail, but does not have priority.
Fencer B makes a riposte. This action fails (it is parried).

Basically, at this point, the action is over. The lockout will probably catch it, but even if it doesn't, everything after this doesn't matter.

The fact that A can hit again or that B can remise does not matter.

The call, as others have said is:

Attack from [whatever side A is on] is parried. Riposte is no. Remise of attack arrives. Touch [whatever side A is on].

[oldguy31]

Happened at a JWC....A attacks, B parries, but just as B parries, the FIE obsever's poodle, breaks free from his leash and rush over and bites A in the leg...A curses, boots Poodle for significant yardage, and performs a brilliant open eyes disengae to deceive B's wicked circular parry (due to muscle memory training no way impeded by the freakish events). Referee has not called halt. FIE Observer runs over to referee to scream that A should get black carded for "unsportsmanlike conduct" . Referee chokes laughter and sees GP invitation vanish before her eyes...


What is the right call??

[Superscribe]

The most important point of this question is whether or not actions made after a touch count.

Foilion is saying the action is not, attack, parry riposte no, remise touche.
The action is actually, attack, parray riposte touche, remise touche.

Why would it be the latter scenario? Because there might be a technicality wherein the rules prevent the ref from acknowledging your parry of the riposte, because the parry of the riposte happened after your touch, and your blade actions after you touch don't technically exist. So if the parry of the opponents riposte technically doesn't exist, and the riposte lands, it's still a riposte, and it's not a remise.

I think that is what foillion is trying to say. I don't know if there's anything in the rulebook to justify his assertion that actions after a touch are null and void.

[Superscribe]

No, really, this is entirely cut and dry. You look at each individual action.

So, first attack is from fencer A. This attack fails (it is parried).
Fencer B now has priority.
Fencer A remises and hits. This attack obviously does not fail, but does not have priority.
Fencer B makes a riposte. This action fails (it is parried).

Let me use this quote to clarify my above post. The contention here is that fencer B makes a riposte and it does NOT fail because, technically, it was NOT parried.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Happened at a JWC....A attacks, B parries, but just as B parries, the FIE obsever's poodle, breaks free from his leash and rush over and bites A in the leg...A curses, boots Poodle for significant yardage, and performs a brilliant open eyes disengae to deceive B's wicked circular parry (due to muscle memory training no way impeded by the freakish events). Referee has not called halt. FIE Observer runs over to referee to scream that A should get black carded for "unsportsmanlike conduct" . Referee chokes laughter and sees GP invitation vanish before her eyes...


What is the right call??

According to this, B parried, but made no riposte, then attempted to parry again. You also never state that anyone hits (A disengaged, but a disengage is a preparation, and not actually an attack by the strictest definition).

So, A attacks. This action fails (is parried).
B does not riposte.
Order disturbed on the strip.

A good referee would give a yellow card to the FIE observer and black card the poodle (or simply ask that it be removed from the venue). Then, (s)he would ask Fencer A if he is hurt and requires medical attention.

[KD5MDK]

There is no such rule.

[InFerrumVeritas]

The most important point of this question is whether or not actions made after a touch count.

Foilion is saying the action is not, attack, parry riposte no, remise touche.
The action is actually, attack, parray riposte touche, remise touche.

Why would it be the latter scenario? Because there might be a technicality wherein the rules prevent the ref from acknowledging your parry of the riposte, because the parry of the riposte happened after your touch, and your blade actions after you touch don't technically exist. So if the parry of the opponents riposte technically doesn't exist, and the riposte lands, it's still a riposte, and it's not a remise.

I think that is what foillion is trying to say. I don't know if there's anything in the rulebook to justify his assertion that actions after a touch are null and void.

Even at this point, the riposte failed. Whether or not it was parried (that is, if the parry is technically able to be acknowledged), the riposte failed.

EDIT: And, yes, there is no such rule.

[foillion]

I've already acknowledged that riposte is no, remise is probably the right call. What I'm wondering is at what point does a failed attempt to close out become an action that could be said to be a counterparry? When the tip arrives? Slightly before? I could make the call if I saw it I'm sure but I guess I'm just looking for the letter of the law here.

And Superscribe you hit the nail on the head for what I was looking for.

-P

[InFerrumVeritas]

I've already acknowledged that riposte is no, remise is probably the right call. What I'm wondering is at what point does a failed attempt to close out become an action that could be said to be a counterparry? When the tip arrives? Slightly before? I could make the call if I saw it I'm sure but I guess I'm just looking for the letter of the law here.

-P

An attempt to close out is a counterparry when it follows a riposte and as long as the parry happens before tip arrives. It doesn't matter if the opponent (fencer B here) is able to remise or not. The thing is, it doesn't really matter. As long as the riposte fails, it is not pertinent to the call.

[dberke]

The most important point of this question is whether or not actions made after a touch count.

Foilion is saying the action is not, attack, parry riposte no, remise touche.
The action is actually, attack, parray riposte touche, remise touche.

Why would it be the latter scenario? Because there might be a technicality wherein the rules prevent the ref from acknowledging your parry of the riposte, because the parry of the riposte happened after your touch, and your blade actions after you touch don't technically exist. So if the parry of the opponents riposte technically doesn't exist, and the riposte lands, it's still a riposte, and it's not a remise.

I think that is what foillion is trying to say. I don't know if there's anything in the rulebook to justify his assertion that actions after a touch are null and void.

Maybe I'm reading things a bit differently, but here's my take on the action. I believe he's describing this:

A attacks
B parries
B starts immediate riposte
A makes immediate remise (out of time) and lands
A then makes counter-riposte
B finishes their riposte (now a remise) and hits

I think the crux of the question is, does A's remise "end" A's opportunity to score, and if so, how would the action be called? If A hadn't landed on the remise, this would have been a simple call - counter-riposte for A.

On one hand, A's remise is out-of-time since B started an immediate riposte. But on the other hand, A is somehow quick enough to sneak in a counter-riposte after landing the remise, so does that count, or did their action end with the remise?

My gut tells me that this would be called for A like so - Attack is parried, riposte (for B) is no, remise (for A) arrives.

Given the lockout times on the scoring machines these days, I doubt this situation could arise - if B's riposte is so slow that A has time to remise, counter-riposte, and hit again, B would almost certainly not get a light on their action.

A should get the touch simply for breaking the laws of physics!

Dan

[keith]

What I'm wondering is at what point does a failed attempt to close out become an action that could be said to be a counterparry? When the tip arrives? Slightly before? I could make the call if I saw it I'm sure but I guess I'm just looking for the letter of the law here.

So the question you meant to ask was;

Isn't there a distinction (in terms of priority) between a counter with opposition and a parry riposte?

To which, I recall, the answer is yes.

[foillion]

So the question you meant to ask was;

Isn't there a distinction (in terms of priority) between a counter with opposition and a parry riposte?

To which, I recall, the answer is yes.

Yes and no. I know that a parry riposte and a counter with opposition are two separate actions the first with ROW the second without. But at what point in time does the counter with opposition become an opportunity for a second riposte? Fencer A makes the remise and is attempting to close out fencer B's riposte in doing so fencer B ends up on A's guard but arrives on target. Has A successful closed out because of that blade to guard contact or does he need to close out completely? Secondly because of that blade to guard contact if A decides to try and hit B again is this a riposte for A or still just a failed closeout? I'm trying to define in my head what constitutes a failed opposition closeout vs. a valid counterparry action.

-P

[downunder]

it changes when it stops the attack by deflecting the blade.

It's not a complicated fencing action - all these words are.